Understanding print run calculations for ratio variants...

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

No, Greg. You're starting with an invalid premise, which is that distribution ratios have anything at all to do with print runs.

 

They don't.

 

Everything else...no matter how elegantly developed...fails from the outset if you are suggesting that distribution ratios are tied to print numbers.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, to sum this up: all estimates are wrong because the publishers don't have to stick to the ratios when they do the actual printing.

 

All needling aside, some interesting food for thought. Makes me wonder if there is any way we can make the distinction between actual rarity and perceived rarity

 

 

Not only don't they, there's no reason to assume they ever have. Those are distribution ratios, and nothing more may be extrapolated from them.

 

In other words: the numbers "1:50" mean ONLY that, for every 50 copies of the regular version that a retailer orders he/she will receive/can order 1 copy of the variant.

 

Everything beyond that is speculation, and not reliable speculation at that.

 

Personally, I don't understand why there's even controversy about this. I guess people really, really, really, REALLLLLY want to believe that "1:X" means something more than it actually does.

 

But it is a belief that has no basis in fact, at least for most of the publishers.

 

The only reason it's such a controversy is because people want to really believe something that isn't true.

 

[valiantman]

No, Greg. You're starting with an invalid premise, which is that distribution ratios have anything at all to do with print runs.

 

They don't.

 

Everything else...no matter how elegantly developed...fails from the outset if you are suggesting that distribution ratios are tied to print numbers.

 

I used many words to cover your concern:

Never forget that the rules for retailers to receive variants are for retailers. There are no rules for publishers to receive variants. Publishers can print as many as they want. Any variant that is estimated to be 171 copies, for example, might be 171 or 200 or 300 or 2,000, if the publisher wishes. It might also be 140 copies, if that is the number of retailers who qualified. Not all 10,000 copies will be in 50 copy orders, so there will be many regular copies sold below the 1:50 requirement and there won't need to be 171 copies of the 1:50. At the end of the day, without the publisher making a specific statement about the specific print runs, we are left with the "best estimates" as described above.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I have another potential wrinkle to add to this. If a comic is reported as 10,000 copies sold, does that truely indicate the number actually printed. I know companies have been much tighter on their print runs the last few years, but it is likely the number printed still exceeds the number purchased in most cases.

 

Copies SOLD is NOT copies PRINTED.

 

 

Indeed.

 

And the incentive ratio is based on regular cover copies SOLD, not printed.

 

Valiantman's formula is a perfectly reasonable way to estimate.

 

-J

 

 

That is true only if the ratio has anything to do with the print numbers.

 

It does not.

 

Since the ratio is not related to the print numbers, estimates based those ratios will fail.

 

It may be a hard pill for some to swallow, but there it is nonetheless.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

No, Greg. You're starting with an invalid premise, which is that distribution ratios have anything at all to do with print runs.

 

They don't.

 

Everything else...no matter how elegantly developed...fails from the outset if you are suggesting that distribution ratios are tied to print numbers.

 

I used many words to cover your concern:

Never forget that the rules for retailers to receive variants are for retailers. There are no rules for publishers to receive variants. Publishers can print as many as they want. Any variant that is estimated to be 171 copies, for example, might be 171 or 200 or 300 or 2,000, if the publisher wishes. It might also be 140 copies, if that is the number of retailers who qualified. Not all 10,000 copies will be in 50 copy orders, so there will be many regular copies sold below the 1:50 requirement and there won't need to be 171 copies of the 1:50. At the end of the day, without the publisher making a specific statement about the specific print runs, we are left with the "best estimates" as described above.

 

 

And, as I've said elsewhere, those aren't good estimates, because they aren't based on any real numbers, AND using distribution ratios, far from clarifying the picture, will only succeed in muddying the waters more than they already have been.

 

It's not scientific, and it's not a reasonable way to estimate. It necessarily has to come with so many qualifiers, it renders the estimation ultimately useless.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

[valiantman]

No, Greg. You're starting with an invalid premise, which is that distribution ratios have anything at all to do with print runs.

 

They don't.

 

Everything else...no matter how elegantly developed...fails from the outset if you are suggesting that distribution ratios are tied to print numbers.

 

I used many words to cover your concern:

Never forget that the rules for retailers to receive variants are for retailers. There are no rules for publishers to receive variants. Publishers can print as many as they want. Any variant that is estimated to be 171 copies, for example, might be 171 or 200 or 300 or 2,000, if the publisher wishes. It might also be 140 copies, if that is the number of retailers who qualified. Not all 10,000 copies will be in 50 copy orders, so there will be many regular copies sold below the 1:50 requirement and there won't need to be 171 copies of the 1:50. At the end of the day, without the publisher making a specific statement about the specific print runs, we are left with the "best estimates" as described above.

 

 

And, as I've said elsewhere, those aren't good estimates, because they aren't based on any real numbers, AND using distribution ratios, far from clarifying the picture, will only succeed in muddying the waters more than they already have been.

 

It's not scientific, and it's not a reasonable way to estimate. It necessarily has to come with so many qualifiers, it renders the estimation ultimately useless.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

Disagree. Having data is always better than not. When comichron.com decides the whole effort is useless because retailers sales don't equate to print runs, then I'll stop estimating from retailer orders.

[RockMyAmadeus]

No, Greg. You're starting with an invalid premise, which is that distribution ratios have anything at all to do with print runs.

 

They don't.

 

Everything else...no matter how elegantly developed...fails from the outset if you are suggesting that distribution ratios are tied to print numbers.

 

I used many words to cover your concern:

Never forget that the rules for retailers to receive variants are for retailers. There are no rules for publishers to receive variants. Publishers can print as many as they want. Any variant that is estimated to be 171 copies, for example, might be 171 or 200 or 300 or 2,000, if the publisher wishes. It might also be 140 copies, if that is the number of retailers who qualified. Not all 10,000 copies will be in 50 copy orders, so there will be many regular copies sold below the 1:50 requirement and there won't need to be 171 copies of the 1:50. At the end of the day, without the publisher making a specific statement about the specific print runs, we are left with the "best estimates" as described above.

 

 

And, as I've said elsewhere, those aren't good estimates, because they aren't based on any real numbers, AND using distribution ratios, far from clarifying the picture, will only succeed in muddying the waters more than they already have been.

 

It's not scientific, and it's not a reasonable way to estimate. It necessarily has to come with so many qualifiers, it renders the estimation ultimately useless.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

Disagree. Having data is always better than not. When comichron.com decides the whole effort is useless because retailers sales don't equate to print runs, then I'll stop estimating from retailer orders.

 

 

No. Data that confuses people and leads them to faulty conclusions based on faulty information and faulty reasoning is more trouble than it is worth.

 

How many endless people run around claiming that "if comic X had a print run of 100,000 copies according to Comichron, and there was a 1:200 variant for it, that means there were only 500 copies printed of the variant!"...?

 

Endlessly.

 

1. That "print run" isn't a print run. Most people don't understand that.

 

2. The distribution ratio also isn't a print run. Most people don't understand that.

 

It's bad science.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

No, Greg. You're starting with an invalid premise, which is that distribution ratios have anything at all to do with print runs.

 

They don't.

 

Everything else...no matter how elegantly developed...fails from the outset if you are suggesting that distribution ratios are tied to print numbers.

 

I used many words to cover your concern:

Never forget that the rules for retailers to receive variants are for retailers. There are no rules for publishers to receive variants. Publishers can print as many as they want. Any variant that is estimated to be 171 copies, for example, might be 171 or 200 or 300 or 2,000, if the publisher wishes. It might also be 140 copies, if that is the number of retailers who qualified. Not all 10,000 copies will be in 50 copy orders, so there will be many regular copies sold below the 1:50 requirement and there won't need to be 171 copies of the 1:50. At the end of the day, without the publisher making a specific statement about the specific print runs, we are left with the "best estimates" as described above.

 

 

And, as I've said elsewhere, those aren't good estimates, because they aren't based on any real numbers, AND using distribution ratios, far from clarifying the picture, will only succeed in muddying the waters more than they already have been.

 

It's not scientific, and it's not a reasonable way to estimate. It necessarily has to come with so many qualifiers, it renders the estimation ultimately useless.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

Disagree. Having data is always better than not. When comichron.com decides the whole effort is useless because retailers sales don't equate to print runs, then I'll stop estimating from retailer orders.

 

 

Also...JJM (Comichron), as he has said many times before, only reports estimated sales in North America, according to what Diamond tells him. He, himself, isn't estimating anything (generally.) The whole effort isn't useless because all he is doing....and all he is CLAIMING to being doing...is reporting estimated sales for North America. He doesn't go beyond that.

 

Neither should anyone else. In making estimates, you're going beyond what Comichron does.

 

[Doktor]

No, Greg. You're starting with an invalid premise, which is that distribution ratios have anything at all to do with print runs.

 

They don't.

 

Everything else...no matter how elegantly developed...fails from the outset if you are suggesting that distribution ratios are tied to print numbers.

 

I used many words to cover your concern:

Never forget that the rules for retailers to receive variants are for retailers. There are no rules for publishers to receive variants. Publishers can print as many as they want. Any variant that is estimated to be 171 copies, for example, might be 171 or 200 or 300 or 2,000, if the publisher wishes. It might also be 140 copies, if that is the number of retailers who qualified. Not all 10,000 copies will be in 50 copy orders, so there will be many regular copies sold below the 1:50 requirement and there won't need to be 171 copies of the 1:50. At the end of the day, without the publisher making a specific statement about the specific print runs, we are left with the "best estimates" as described above.

 

 

And, as I've said elsewhere, those aren't good estimates, because they aren't based on any real numbers, AND using distribution ratios, far from clarifying the picture, will only succeed in muddying the waters more than they already have been.

 

It's not scientific, and it's not a reasonable way to estimate. It necessarily has to come with so many qualifiers, it renders the estimation ultimately useless.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

Disagree. Having data is always better than not. When comichron.com decides the whole effort is useless because retailers sales don't equate to print runs, then I'll stop estimating from retailer orders.

 

Agreed. While I understand the point RMA is making, this formula is useful for giving pretty much 1 thing: the approximate maximum number that hit stores in week 1 of release. That's pretty much it. How many are printed is a totally different question & one that we couldn't even fathom a guess at. Sure, it would be nice to know but we never will. Hell, a publisher could print 3x the number of a 1:5000 variant than they do of the standard (obviously an exaggeration but we'll never know) just for fun. Nobody has the slightest clue.

 

So even mostly useless or bad data is better than no data at all. But I think this threat should be more accurately titled "calculations of estimates on initial distribution of week-1 variants"

[valiantman]

 

Also...JJM (Comichron), as he has said many times before, only reports estimated sales in North America, according to what Diamond tells him. He, himself, isn't estimating anything (generally.) The whole effort isn't useless because all he is doing....and all he is CLAIMING to being doing...is reporting estimated sales for North America. He doesn't go beyond that.

 

Neither should anyone else. In making estimates, you're going beyond what Comichron does.

We could argue ad nauseum, but all I'm claiming to do is apply the Previews retailer incentive ratios to the estimated sales for North America from comichron.com

 

I'm not claiming to provide final print run numbers. The data I provide matches what I'm claiming that it is.

 

Data > No Data

 

I bolded the "Never forget" statement in the first post. Beyond that, I'm satisfied despite your objection.

[Jaydogrules]

More than a few boardies with knowledge of the print industry have come in and stated many times that publishers do not grossly overprint books that no one has actually ordered as a rule of thumb. 10-15% over actual orders received is the basic guideline to account for damages, filling out case packs, etc. Obviously that can change with event books and what-not, but publishers do not make it a habit of printing books that no one ordered.

 

And again, since ratio variants are "distributed" based on quantities of a regular cover actually "ordered" and not "printed" anyway it does not require a massive leap in logic to understand that the same, in all likelihood, applies to the variants.

 

-J.

[BarryAllen]

[ygogolak]

 

Also...JJM (Comichron), as he has said many times before, only reports estimated sales in North America, according to what Diamond tells him. He, himself, isn't estimating anything (generally.) The whole effort isn't useless because all he is doing....and all he is CLAIMING to being doing...is reporting estimated sales for North America. He doesn't go beyond that.

 

Neither should anyone else. In making estimates, you're going beyond what Comichron does.

We could argue ad nauseum, but all I'm claiming to do is apply the Previews retailer incentive ratios to the estimated sales for North America from comichron.com

 

I'm not claiming to provide final print run numbers. The data I provide matches what I'm claiming that it is.

 

Data > No Data

 

I bolded the "Never forget" statement in the first post. Beyond that, I'm satisfied despite your objection.

 

Correct Data > Data

 

Hey, I did your taxes for you. They're not right, but at least you have some data to submit.

[valiantman]

 

Also...JJM (Comichron), as he has said many times before, only reports estimated sales in North America, according to what Diamond tells him. He, himself, isn't estimating anything (generally.) The whole effort isn't useless because all he is doing....and all he is CLAIMING to being doing...is reporting estimated sales for North America. He doesn't go beyond that.

 

Neither should anyone else. In making estimates, you're going beyond what Comichron does.

We could argue ad nauseum, but all I'm claiming to do is apply the Previews retailer incentive ratios to the estimated sales for North America from comichron.com

 

I'm not claiming to provide final print run numbers. The data I provide matches what I'm claiming that it is.

 

Data > No Data

 

I bolded the "Never forget" statement in the first post. Beyond that, I'm satisfied despite your objection.

 

Correct Data > Data

 

Hey, I did your taxes for you. They're not right, but at least you have some data to submit.

If Correct Data was available, we'd use it.

 

What you are really saying is Unavailable Data > Estimate Data.

 

... and I disagree.

[Kaboom]

I am not sure if anyone remembers this, but back in the day the publishers were required to print in their periodicals (comics included) the number of copies sold, sent out for free, and other criteria once a year. I have to dig through some old comics, but I believe they reported their highest printed issue for the series as well as the lowest printed issue for the series. Does anyone else remember this? I was a cover to cover reader, especially on long car trips. This was all before the death of the news stand though.

[drotto]

I am not sure if anyone remembers this, but back in the day the publishers were required to print in their periodicals (comics included) the number of copies sold, sent out for free, and other criteria once a year. I have to dig through some old comics, but I believe they reported their highest printed issue for the series as well as the lowest printed issue for the series. Does anyone else remember this? I was a cover to cover reader, especially on long car trips. This was all before the death of the news stand though.

 

Yes, old issues did print a circulation statement once per years that gave things like, number of that issue printed, average number of issues for the past twelve months, etc. I have not seen that box in years.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Also...JJM (Comichron), as he has said many times before, only reports estimated sales in North America, according to what Diamond tells him. He, himself, isn't estimating anything (generally.) The whole effort isn't useless because all he is doing....and all he is CLAIMING to being doing...is reporting estimated sales for North America. He doesn't go beyond that.

 

Neither should anyone else. In making estimates, you're going beyond what Comichron does.

We could argue ad nauseum, but all I'm claiming to do is apply the Previews retailer incentive ratios to the estimated sales for North America from comichron.com

 

I'm not claiming to provide final print run numbers. The data I provide matches what I'm claiming that it is.

 

Data > No Data

 

I bolded the "Never forget" statement in the first post. Beyond that, I'm satisfied despite your objection.

 

Correct Data > Data

 

Hey, I did your taxes for you. They're not right, but at least you have some data to submit.

 

 

 

 

Yes, this pretty much expresses the idea succinctly.

 

Correct Data > Incomplete/Inaccurate Data. So much so, it's really not even a comparison.

 

Applying the distribution ratios to Comichron numbers to arrive at some sort of estimate of the print runs of the incentive variants is no more...and, frankly, no less...accurate than applying the number of organic tomatoes I bought last week to the Comichron numbers to arrive at the same conclusion. In both cases, you would be trying to apply completely unrelated numbers to arrive at "estimates."

 

We could, indeed, argue ad nauseum...just as you could with those who insist that 2 + 2 = 5...but using those numbers only succeeds in confusing people who don't understand what they actually mean, because the mistake appears, on the surface, to makes so much sense. Which is, of course, why so many people try to do that.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Also...JJM (Comichron), as he has said many times before, only reports estimated sales in North America, according to what Diamond tells him. He, himself, isn't estimating anything (generally.) The whole effort isn't useless because all he is doing....and all he is CLAIMING to being doing...is reporting estimated sales for North America. He doesn't go beyond that.

 

Neither should anyone else. In making estimates, you're going beyond what Comichron does.

We could argue ad nauseum, but all I'm claiming to do is apply the Previews retailer incentive ratios to the estimated sales for North America from comichron.com

 

I'm not claiming to provide final print run numbers. The data I provide matches what I'm claiming that it is.

 

Data > No Data

 

I bolded the "Never forget" statement in the first post. Beyond that, I'm satisfied despite your objection.

 

Correct Data > Data

 

Hey, I did your taxes for you. They're not right, but at least you have some data to submit.

If Correct Data was available, we'd use it.

 

What you are really saying is Unavailable Data > Estimate Data.

 

... and I disagree.

 

 

Estimate Data has no value if it's not only a complete guess, but also based on assumptions (that the distribution ratio has any bearing on the print run of the incentives) that aren't true.

 

 

 

[Lazyboy]

I am not sure if anyone remembers this, but back in the day the publishers were required to print in their periodicals (comics included) the number of copies sold, sent out for free, and other criteria once a year. I have to dig through some old comics, but I believe they reported their highest printed issue for the series as well as the lowest printed issue for the series. Does anyone else remember this? I was a cover to cover reader, especially on long car trips. This was all before the death of the news stand though.

 

The second half of the FAQ page on Comichron covers SoOs.

 

The information included:

Total No. Copies Printed

Paid Circulation - 1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales 2) Mail subscriptions

Total Paid Circulation

Free Distribution

Total Distribution

Copies Not Distributed - 1) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing 2) Returns from News Agents

 

Each of those had data for the 12 month average and the single issue nearest to filing date.

 

In 1996, Marvel added another piece of interesting information: Issue date for circulation data below, which I have to assume applies to the single issue nearest to filing date.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I am not sure if anyone remembers this, but back in the day the publishers were required to print in their periodicals (comics included) the number of copies sold, sent out for free, and other criteria once a year. I have to dig through some old comics, but I believe they reported their highest printed issue for the series as well as the lowest printed issue for the series. Does anyone else remember this? I was a cover to cover reader, especially on long car trips. This was all before the death of the news stand though.

 

The second half of the FAQ page on Comichron covers SoOs.

 

 

Total nit, but wouldn't that be SsoO...?